(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.01.13 2016노2214 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.01.13 2016노2214

특수절도등

Text

The judgment below

Among them, the part on the violation of the Road Traffic Act (unlicensed driving) shall be reversed.

A fine shall be imposed on Defendant 300.

Reasons

1. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including the statements of C, D and C, the gist of the grounds for appeal, the court below acquitted the defendant, although the defendant could fully recognize the fact that the wing wing wing wing wing wing wing was driven without the motor vehicle driver's license, and the court below acquitted the defendant. The judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination on the assertion of mistake as to special larceny

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged was known to the Defendant.

C, D, E, and F, on November 23, 2014, at around 22:00, 22:00, 2014, the victim B, who was parked in the roads near Busan G, Busan, had no number plate equivalent to KRW 1,00,00, the market price of the victim B, and the Defendant D, E, and F, considered the surrounding areas, and reported the network, and C used the key of the Otobba, which was in possession, to cut off by driving the Oba in the above Oba, by putting it into the Oba, and by driving it at the speed of the Oba in the above Oba, by means of a scam.

Accordingly, the defendant stolen the property owned by the victim together with C, D, E, and F.

B. The lower court determined that the following circumstances acknowledged by the record: (a) it is difficult to believe that the statements of C and D, which seem to correspond to this part of the facts charged, are inconsistent; (b) even C, at the court of the lower court, had the view that she could be aware of her memory at the original investigation agency; and (c) D, at the original investigation agency of the lower court, had the same effect as himself and C

The testimony was made after hearing C’s statement, and the testimony was reversed with the content that he, C, F, E, and Defendant was at the theft site, and ② was at the theft site.

E/F consistently deemed that the Defendant was not present at a theft site.

In light of the statement, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is the defendant.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2016.05.31 2015고단6940 (1)

-광주지방법원 2016.03.31 2015고단5170

-대구지방법원 김천지원 2018.03.06 2016고단1721 (2)

-서울북부지방법원 2018.12.07 2018노1598

-전주지방법원 군산지원 2017.10.25 2017고단913